Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Coroc" data-source="post: 7868065" data-attributes="member: 6895991">Nope, you intermix two things here. Like [USER=996]@Tony Vargas[/USER] said, there were maybe to many drizzt clones underway also, but do not forget that the drizzt books were new and cool back then, so it was no overused pseudo archetype back then but like todays let's say, a party with Dragonborn Paladin, Tiefling sorcerer, Tabaxi Rogue and Eladrin Cleric.It was simply something new at some point and we did use it, not directly but I can remember back then I had a halfdrow npc thief in my Greyhawk campaign and it was mystic and new and weird somehow.The restriction trend which I only can highly support has totally different reasons.The iconic campaign worlds lived by that restriction partially, it is like the famous beginning of an adventure which was also depicted in the ultima underworld 1 computer game:"You are thrown naked into a dungeon, you find a rusty dagger in the corner, what do you do?"To some it may be the example of shoehorning, for me it is a super start for a campaign.It is really starting at level 1, no cheating. A challenge in itself.You say oh I can do that with todays multitude also, I say no you cannot. If you do not want that the player simply teleports out of your multi level dungeon prison as soon as he reaches level x then you just cannot by raw.Restriction is not that a DM cannot handle or shoehorn races into campaign worlds where they do not belong to. It is to reduce choice and the players gain by this less is more, e.g. normal rules apply but no divine spells above 5th level or, paladins do not exist in this world and we play without feats.It takes a much more planning approach on the players sides, since they have only a selection of tools at their hands.I do not say that you have to play like that all the time, but it is sure a more satisfying experience than to use the game as written to the letter. It is just an extra challenge, it is not to punish things or to make monsters harder since a good DM will balance out things perfectly.I have to come back to my central point in all of these debates:Restricting fluff is fun, you do not unbalance anything by restricting fluff. There is no breaking of game mechanics by restricting fluff. And fluff is e.g. almost anything with name attached to it which would also work if it had a different name.Means mobs, alignments, spells, deities, weapons, races, classes, race - class combos etc. etc.</blockquote>

Verification